SITARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) THE main submission of Mr. Choubey is that though the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the non-applicant No. 2 guilty of offence under Section 302, IPC, he referred the matter to the Juvenile Board, the competent authority under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, for passing an order on the sentence. Mr. Choubey further submits that before holding that the non-applicant No. 2 was a juvenile, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have conducted necessary enquiry by giving proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in that regard.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Datt, appearing for the non-applicant No. 2 submits that under the provisions of Sections 14 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the applicant would get an opportunity to lead evidence to the contrary before the Juvenile Justice Board, being the competent authority.